Aristotelian/Ciceronian – to equate principles of practical argument with principles and processes of formal logic and mathematics is mistaken (as Aristotle asserted) but still abandons traditional distinctions between rhetoric and dialectic, finding Aristotle’s attempt to maintain the distinction irregular and unnecessary. Notes that Aristotle studied dialectical reasoning – that dialectical reasoning presupposes premises which are constituted by generally accepted opinion.
Adherence, audience at particular time or place and particular group (kairos), ambiguity of language, “practical reason”
Came to rhetoric as a result of search for “a logic of value judgments” legal philosophy
Extant (surviving) systems of philosophy he found were devoted to formal logic as the foundation of rationality, which relegated any discussion of values to the realm of irrational and subjective. Yet, judgments about justice, morality, politics, and religion are of supreme importance in human affairs. Must not be relegated to irrational.
Justice is answered by argument, yet argument has no standing in philosophy. Concludes “logical value judgments do not exist”
Studied actual arguments made by judges, philosophers, politicians, and others seeking to make value decisions
Realized the arguments they made were strikingly similar to classical topics—moreover, Aristotle’s description of the connection between dialectic and rhetoric spoke to his concerns
So, set out to “revive “ rhetoric and re-link with philosophy
Dispenses with formal logic as unusable in most matters—need dialectic instead.
Follows Aristotle’s distinction between analytical philosophy on one hand and dialectic and rhet on the other.
Blames Ramus and Decartes for problems due to moving dialectic to the realm of logic and reducing rhetoric to verbal ornamentation. Ramus was “fatal for rhetoric” – tossed aside the Aristotelian distinction between analytical and dialectical judgments
Says Ramus created the problem to find truth of logic in value or behavior and Descartes exacerbated the problem by declaring the “merely plausible” to be effectively false. Perelman disagrees with both absolute skepticism and absolute truth.
Argument cannot follow logic (formal) back to Aristotelian dialectic. But more pragmatic than Aristotle. Rhetoric is not theoretical, but applicable, not a method of exploring human nature, but a tool. This is New Rhetoric, which collapses under postmodernism.
Formal argument-demonstrations of a proposition. Non-formal argument- concerned with adherence of audience.
Realm of Rhetoric 1982 is entire universe of argumentative discourse Seeks to identify HOW arguers claim rationality –what does reasonable mean
In both dialectic and rhetoric as traditionally defined “it is in terms of an audience that argumentation develops” – arguer always seeking adherence of some other persons to an undemonstratable thesis
Argumentation proceeds informally, not according to rules of formal deduction and induction
Arguments are ALWAYS addressed to audiences (even self) for purposes of adherence to theses presented (specific audience or “universal” audience, which is hardest to do. When you choose universal audience, you argue philosophically)
To be successful arguments must proceed from premises that are acceptable to the audiences
Argument always includes procedures by which ideas and values can be give special presence (French meaning – made present) in the minds of those addressed
Ambiguity is never avoidable in arguments because language in unavoidable equivocal in some degree – more than one interpretation
Liaisons or relationships of concepts and attitudes are created by verbal techniques:
Quasi-logical arguments that claim to be rational because they resemble patterns of formal reasoning
Arguments based on claims concerning structure of reality
Arguments based on examples, illustrations, models
Clarifications of one idea by associating it with another, as in analogy or metaphor
Process by which some part of an idea is detached from it so that the primary idea can be seen as objectionable or incompatible with features
Amplification or abridgment of ideas or values
Imposing special orders on ideas or arguments
All argumentation is rhetorical rather than “logical” or “valid” – claims must be made to seem reasonable, cannot be proved completely, must be judged to be reasonable
Cannot expect audience adherence to be total or irrevocable – can only seek a degree of acceptance/adherence
Place ideas in “contact” – not locked together – can’t “entail” in an argument, and only create liaisons.
Perelman says of his predecessors: No single truth—Sophists. There is a Truth and philosopher must seek—Plato. Distrust rhetoric and other cookery—Plato’s Socrates. More nuanced—separation of practical from theoretical—Aristotle. All are good. But Ramus and Descartes are BAD.
Perleman, Chaïm. The Realm of Rhetoric
(1982)
- Aristotelian/Ciceronian – to equate principles of practical argument with principles and processes of formal logic and mathematics is mistaken (as Aristotle asserted) but still abandons traditional distinctions between rhetoric and dialectic, finding Aristotle’s attempt to maintain the distinction irregular and unnecessary. Notes that Aristotle studied dialectical reasoning – that dialectical reasoning presupposes premises which are constituted by generally accepted opinion.
- Adherence, audience at particular time or place and particular group (kairos), ambiguity of language, “practical reason”
- Came to rhetoric as a result of search for “a logic of value judgments” legal philosophy
- Extant (surviving) systems of philosophy he found were devoted to formal logic as the foundation of rationality, which relegated any discussion of values to the realm of irrational and subjective. Yet, judgments about justice, morality, politics, and religion are of supreme importance in human affairs. Must not be relegated to irrational.
- Justice is answered by argument, yet argument has no standing in philosophy. Concludes “logical value judgments do not exist”
- Studied actual arguments made by judges, philosophers, politicians, and others seeking to make value decisions
- Realized the arguments they made were strikingly similar to classical topics—moreover, Aristotle’s description of the connection between dialectic and rhetoric spoke to his concerns
- So, set out to “revive “ rhetoric and re-link with philosophy
- Dispenses with formal logic as unusable in most matters—need dialectic instead.
- Follows Aristotle’s distinction between analytical philosophy on one hand and dialectic and rhet on the other.
- Blames Ramus and Decartes for problems due to moving dialectic to the realm of logic and reducing rhetoric to verbal ornamentation. Ramus was “fatal for rhetoric” – tossed aside the Aristotelian distinction between analytical and dialectical judgments
- Says Ramus created the problem to find truth of logic in value or behavior and Descartes exacerbated the problem by declaring the “merely plausible” to be effectively false. Perelman disagrees with both absolute skepticism and absolute truth.
- Argument cannot follow logic (formal) back to Aristotelian dialectic. But more pragmatic than Aristotle. Rhetoric is not theoretical, but applicable, not a method of exploring human nature, but a tool. This is New Rhetoric, which collapses under postmodernism.
- Formal argument-demonstrations of a proposition. Non-formal argument- concerned with adherence of audience.
- Realm of Rhetoric 1982 is entire universe of argumentative discourse Seeks to identify HOW arguers claim rationality –what does reasonable mean
- In both dialectic and rhetoric as traditionally defined “it is in terms of an audience that argumentation develops” – arguer always seeking adherence of some other persons to an undemonstratable thesis
- Argumentation proceeds informally, not according to rules of formal deduction and induction
- Arguments are ALWAYS addressed to audiences (even self) for purposes of adherence to theses presented (specific audience or “universal” audience, which is hardest to do. When you choose universal audience, you argue philosophically)
- To be successful arguments must proceed from premises that are acceptable to the audiences
- Argument always includes procedures by which ideas and values can be give special presence (French meaning – made present) in the minds of those addressed
- Ambiguity is never avoidable in arguments because language in unavoidable equivocal in some degree – more than one interpretation
- Liaisons or relationships of concepts and attitudes are created by verbal techniques:
- Quasi-logical arguments that claim to be rational because they resemble patterns of formal reasoning
- Arguments based on claims concerning structure of reality
- Arguments based on examples, illustrations, models
- Clarifications of one idea by associating it with another, as in analogy or metaphor
- Process by which some part of an idea is detached from it so that the primary idea can be seen as objectionable or incompatible with features
- Amplification or abridgment of ideas or values
- Imposing special orders on ideas or arguments
- All argumentation is rhetorical rather than “logical” or “valid” – claims must be made to seem reasonable, cannot be proved completely, must be judged to be reasonable
- Cannot expect audience adherence to be total or irrevocable – can only seek a degree of acceptance/adherence
- Place ideas in “contact” – not locked together – can’t “entail” in an argument, and only create liaisons.
Perelman says of his predecessors: No single truth—Sophists. There is a Truth and philosopher must seek—Plato. Distrust rhetoric and other cookery—Plato’s Socrates. More nuanced—separation of practical from theoretical—Aristotle. All are good. But Ramus and Descartes are BAD.